Implementation of healthcare accreditation in Danish general practice: a questionnaire study exploring general practitioners' perspectives on external support

Objective To describe the use and perceived usefulness of implementation support provided to general practice during an accreditation process and to explore potential variations across clinic characteristics. Design Cross-sectional questionnaire study. Setting and subjects All Danish general practice clinics undergoing an accreditation survey from 27 September 2016 to 15 December 2017 (n = 608). Main outcome measures Use and perceived usefulness of seven types of implementation support as reported by general practitioners (GPs). Clinic characteristics included practice type, number of GP partners and staff and employment of GP trainees. Results The total response rate was 74% (n = 447). Most clinics (99.5%) used some type of implementation support (average: 4.8 different types). The most used types of support were peer support (80-92%) and various accreditation documents (85-92%). Support tailored to the individual clinic was most often considered useful (91-97%). However, this type of support was used relatively infrequently (16-40%). In most cases, clinic characteristics were neither significantly associated with the use of support nor with the perceived usefulness of the available support. Conclusion During the accreditation processes, each clinic used a broad variety of implementation support. Support tailored to the individual clinic was highly appreciated and should be promoted in future quality interventions in general practice. Discussions with peers were widely used, and it should be investigated further how peer discussions are best facilitated. The study calls for a multifactorial approach to future quality interventions in general practice to target the needs and capacities of the individual clinics.

Automated summary

The study found that during the accreditation process, each clinic used a wide variety of implementation support. Personalized support was highly appreciated and should be promoted in future quality interventions in general practice. Discussions with peers were widely used, and further research is needed to explore how peer discussions can be best facilitated.